new solutions of the problems of versification, there was equally little
latitude allowed him in the other division of his peculiar province,
diction. In accordance with existing standards, critics doubled their
insistence on Decorum, a quality in which they found the productions of
former times lacking. Johnson criticizes Dryden's _Juvenal_ on the
ground that it wants the dignity of its original.[444] Fawkes finds
Creech "more rustic than any of the rustics in the Sicilian bard," and
adduces in proof many illustrations, from his calling a "noble pastoral
cup a fine two-handled pot" to his dubbing his characters "Tawney Bess,
Tom, Will, Dick" in vulgar English style.[445] Fanshaw, says Mickle in
the preface to his translation of Camoens, had not "the least idea of
the dignity of the epic style." The originals themselves, however,
presented obstacles to suitable rendering. Preston finds this so in the
case of Apollonius Rhodius, and offers this explanation of the matter:
"Ancient terms of art, even if they can be made intelligible, cannot be
rendered, with any degree of grace, into a modern language, where the
corresponding terms are debased into vulgarity by low and familiar use.
Many passages of this kind are to be found in Homer. They are frequent
also in Apollonius Rhodius; particularly so, from the exactness which he
affects in describing everything."[446] Warton, unusually tolerant of
Augustan taste in this respect, finds the same difficulty in the
_Eclogues_ and _Georgics_ of Virgil. "A poem whose excellence peculiarly
consists in the graces of diction," his preface runs, "is far more
difficult to be translated, than a work where sentiment, or passion, or
imagination is chiefly displayed.... Besides, the meanness of the terms
of husbandry is concealed and lost in a dead language, and they convey
no low and despicable image to the mind; but the coarse and common words
I was necessitated to use in the following translation, viz. _plough and
sow_, _wheat_, _dung_, _ashes_, _horse and cow_, etc., will, I fear,
unconquerably disgust many a delicate reader, if he doth not make proper
allowance for a modern compared with an ancient language."[447]
According to Hoole, the English language confines the translator within
narrow limits. A translation of Berni's _Orlando Innamorato_ into
English verse would be almost impossible, "the narrative descending to
such familiar images and expressions as would by no means suit the
genius of our language and poetry."[448] The task of translating
Ariosto, though not so hopeless, is still arduous on this account.
"There is a certain easy negligence in his muse that often assumes a
playful mode of expression incompatible with the nature of our present
poetry.... An English translator will have frequent reason to regret the
more rigid genius of the language, that rarely permits him in this
respect, to attempt even an imitation of his author."
The comments quoted in the preceding pages make one realize that, while
the translator was left astonishingly free as regarded his treatment of
the original, it was at his peril that he ran counter to contemporary
literary standards. The discussion centering around Pope's _Homer_, at
once the most popular and the most typical translation of the period,
may be taken as presenting the situation in epitome. Like other prefaces
of the time, Pope's introductory remarks are, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, misleading. He begins, in orthodox fashion, by
advocating the middle course approved by Dryden. "It is certain," he
writes, "no literal translation can be just to an excellent original in
a superior language: but it is a great mistake to imagine (as many have
done) that a rash paraphrase can make amends for this general defect;
which is no less in danger to lose the spirit of an ancient, by
deviating into the modern manners of expression." Continuing, however,
he urges an unusual degree of faithfulness. The translator must not
think of improving upon his author. "I will venture to say," he
declares, "there have not been more men misled in former times by a
servile, dull adherence to the letter, than have been deluded in ours by
a chimerical insolent hope of raising and improving their author....
'Tis a great secret in writing to know when to be plain, and when
poetical and figurative; and it is what Homer will teach us, if we will
but follow modestly in his footsteps. Where his diction is bold and
lofty, let us raise ours as high as we can; but where his is plain and
humble, we ought not to be deterred from imitating him by the fear of
incurring the censure of a mere English critic." The translator ought to
endeavor to "copy him in all the variations of his style, and the
different modulations of his numbers; to preserve, in the more active or
descriptive parts, a warmth and elevation; in the more sedate or
narrative, a plainness and solemnity; in the speeches a fullness and
perspicuity; in the sentences a shortness and gravity: not to neglect
even the little figures and turns on the words, nor sometimes the very
cast of the periods; neither to omit nor confound any rites and customs
of antiquity."
Declarations like this would, if taken alone, make one rate Pope as a
pioneer in the art of translation. Unfortunately the comment of his
critics, even of those who admired him, tells a different story. "To say
of this noble work that it is the best which ever appeared of the kind,
would be speaking in much lower terms than it deserves," writes
Melmoth, himself a successful translator, in _Fitzosborne's Letters_.
Melmoth's description of Pope's method is, however, very different from
that offered by Pope himself. "Mr. Pope," he says, "seems, in most
places, to have been inspired with the same sublime spirit that animates
his original; as he often takes fire from a single hint in his author,
and blazes out even with a stronger and brighter flame of poetry. Thus
the character of Thersites, as it stands in the English _Iliad_, is
heightened, I think, with more masterly strokes of satire than appear in
the Greek; as many of those similes in Homer, which would appear,
perhaps, to a modern eye too naked and unornamented, are painted by Pope
in all the beautiful drapery of the most graceful metaphor"--a statement
backed by citation of the famous moonlight passage, which Melmoth finds
finer than the corresponding passage in the original. There is no doubt
in the critic's mind as to the desirability of improving upon Homer.
"There is no ancient author," he declares, "more likely to betray an
injudicious interpreter into meannesses than Homer.... But a skilful
artist knows how to embellish the most ordinary subject; and what would
be low and spiritless from a less masterly pencil, becomes pleasing and
graceful when worked up by Mr. Pope."[449]
Melmoth's last comment suggests Matthew Arnold's remark, "Pope composes
with his eye on his style, into which he translates his object, whatever
it may be,"[450] but in intention the two criticisms are very different.
To the average eighteenth-century reader Homer was entirely acceptable
"when worked up by Mr. Pope." Slashing Bentley might declare that it
"must not be called Homer," but he admitted that "it was a pretty poem."
Less competent critics, unhampered by Bentley's scholarly doubts,
thought the work adequate both as a poem and as a translated poem.
Dennis, in his _Remarks upon Pope's Homer_, quotes from a recent review
some characteristic phrases. "I know not which I should most admire,"
says the reviewer, "the justness of the original, or the force and
beauty of the language, or the sounding variety of the numbers."[451]
Prior, with more honesty, refuses to bother his head over "the justness
of the original," and gratefully welcomes the English version.
Hang Homer and Virgil; their meaning to seek,
A man must have pok'd into Latin and Greek;
Those who love their own tongue, we have reason to hope,
Have read them translated by Dryden and Pope.[452]
In general, critics, whether men of letters or Grub Street reviewers,
saw both Pope's _Iliad_ and Homer's _Iliad_ through the medium of
eighteenth-century taste. Even Dennis's onslaught, which begins with a
violent contradiction of the hackneyed tribute quoted above, leaves the
impression that its vigor comes rather from personal animus than from
distrust of existing literary standards or from any new and individual
theory of translation.
With the romantic movement, however, comes criticism which presents to
us Pope's _Iliad_ as seen in the light of common day instead of through
the flattering illusions which had previously veiled it. New translators
like Macpherson and Cowper, though too courteous to direct their attack
specifically against the great Augustan, make it evident that they have
adopted new standards of faithfulness and that they no longer admire
either the diction or the versification which made Pope supreme among
his contemporaries. Macpherson gives it as his opinion that, although
Homer has been repeatedly translated into most of the languages of
modern Europe, "these versions were rather paraphrases than faithful
translations, attempts to give the spirit of Homer, without the
character and peculiarities of his poetry and diction," and that
translators have failed especially in reproducing "the magnificent
simplicity, if the epithet may be used, of the original, which can never
be characteristically expressed in the antithetical quaintness of modern
fine writing."[453] Cowper's prefaces show that he has given serious
consideration to all the opinions of the theorists of his century, and
that his own views are fundamentally opposed to those generally
professed. His own basic principle is that of fidelity to his author,
and, like every sensible critic, he sees that the translator must
preserve a mean between the free and the close methods. This approval of
compromise is not, however, a mere formula; Cowper attempts to throw
light upon it from various angles. The couplet he immediately repudiates
as an enemy to fidelity. "I will venture to assert that a just
translation of any ancient poet in rhyme is impossible," he declares.
"No human ingenuity can be equal to the task of closing every couplet
with sounds homotonous, expressing at the same time the full sense of
his original. The translator's ingenuity, indeed, in this case becomes
itself a snare, and the readier he is at invention and expedient, the
more likely he is to be betrayed into the wildest departures from the
guide whom he professes to follow."[454] The popular idea that the
translator should try to imagine to himself the style which his author
would have used had he been writing in English is to Cowper "a direction
which wants nothing but practicability to recommend it. For suppose six
persons, equally qualified for the task, employed to translate the same
Ancient into their own language, with this rule to guide them. In the
event it would be found that each had fallen on a manner different from
that of all the rest, and by probable inference it would follow that
none had fallen on the right."[455]
Cowper's advocacy of Miltonic blank verse as a suitable vehicle for a
translation of Homer need not concern us here, but another innovation on
which he lays considerable stress in his prefaces helps to throw light
on the practice and the standards of his immediate predecessors. With
more veracity than Pope, he represents himself as having followed his
author even in his "plainer" passages. "The passages which will be least
noticed, and possibly not at all, except by those who shall wish to find
me at a fault," he writes in the preface to the first edition, "are
those which have cost me abundantly the most labor. It is difficult to
kill a sheep with dignity in a modern language, to slay and prepare it
for the table, detailing every circumstance in the process. Difficult
also, without sinking below the level of poetry, to harness mules to a
wagon, particularizing every article of their furniture, straps, rings,
staples, and even the tying of the knots that kept all together. Homer,
who writes always to the eye with all his sublimity and grandeur, has
the minuteness of a Flemish painter." In the preface to his second
edition he recurs to this problem and makes a significant comment on
Pope's method of solving it. "There is no end of passages in Homer," he
repeats, "which must creep unless they be lifted; yet in all such, all
embellishment is out of the question. The hero puts on his clothes, or
refreshes himself with food and wine, or he yokes his steeds, takes a
journey, and in the evening preparation is made for his repose. To give
relief to subjects prosaic as these without seeming unseasonably tumid
is extremely difficult. Mr. Pope abridges some of them, and others he
omits; but neither of these liberties was compatible with the nature of
my undertaking."[456]
That Cowper's reaction against Pope's ideals was not a thing of sudden
growth is evident from a letter more outspoken than the prefaces. "Not
much less than thirty years since," he writes in 1788, "Alston and I
read Homer through together. The result was a discovery that there is
hardly a thing in the world of which Pope is so entirely destitute as a
taste for Homer.... I remembered how we had been disgusted; how often we
had sought the simplicity and majesty of Homer in his English
representative, and had found instead of them puerile conceits,
extravagant metaphors, and the tinsel of modern embellishment in every
possible position."[457]
Cowper's "discovery," startling, almost heretical at the time when it
was made, is now little more than a commonplace. We have long recognized
that Pope's Homer is not the real Homer; it is scarcely an exaggeration
to say, as does Mr. Andrew Lang, "It is almost as if he had taken
Homer's theme and written the poem himself."[458] Yet it is surprising
to see how nearly the eighteenth-century ambition, "to write a poem that
will live in the English language" has been answered in the case of
Pope. Though the "tinsel" of his embellishment is no longer even
"modern," his translation seems able to hold its own against later verse
renderings based on sounder theories. The Augustan translator strove to
give his work "elegance, energy, and fire," and despite the false
elegance, we can still feel something of true energy and fire as we read
the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_.
The truth is that, in translated as in original literature the
permanent and the transitory elements are often oddly mingled. The fate
of Pope's Homer helps us to reconcile two opposed views regarding the
future history of verse translations. Our whole study of the varying
standards set for translators makes us feel the truth of Mr. Lang's
conclusion: "There can be then, it appears, no final English translation
of Homer. In each there must be, in addition to what is Greek and
eternal, the element of what is modern, personal, and fleeting."[459]
The translator, it is obvious, must speak in the dialect and move in the
measures of his own day, thereby very often failing to attract the
attention of a later day. Yet there must be some place in our scheme for
the faith expressed by Matthew Arnold in his essays on translating
Homer, that "the task of translating Homer into English verse both will
be re-attempted, and may be re-attempted successfully."[460] For in
translation there is involved enough of creation to supply the
incalculable element which cheats the theorist. Possibly some day the
miracle may be wrought, and, in spite of changing literary fashions, we
may have our English version of Homer in a form sufficient not only for
an age but for all time.
It is this incalculable quality in creative work that has made
theorizing on the methods of translation more than a mere academic
exercise. Forced to adjust itself to the facts of actual production,
theory has had to follow new paths as literature has followed new paths,
and in the process it has acquired fresh vigor and flexibility. Even as
we leave the period of Pope, we can see the dull inadequacy of a
worn-out collection of rules giving way before the honest, individual
approach of Cowper. "Many a fair precept in poetry," says Dryden apropos
of Roscommon's rules for translation, "is like a seeming demonstration
in the mathematics, very specious in the diagram, but failing in the
mechanic operation."[461] Confronted by such discrepancies, the theorist
has again and again had to modify his "specious" rules, with the result
that the theory of translation, though a small, is yet a living and
growing element in human thought.
FOOTNOTES:
[365] _Preface to the Reader_, in _The Natural History of C. Plinius
Secundus_, London, 1601.
[366] _Dedication_, in _Ovid's Metamorphosis, Englished by G. S._, London,
1640.
[367] _Dedication_, in _The Poems of Horace rendered into Verse by Several
Persons_, London, 1666.
[368] _Juvenal and Persius_, translated by Barten Holyday, Oxford, 1673
(published posthumously).
[369] _Dedication of the Aeneis_, in _Essays of John Dryden_, ed. W. P.
Ker, v. 2, p. 235.
[370] _Postscript to the Reader_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 243.
[371] _Rowe_, in _Lives of the Poets_, Dublin, 1804, p. 284.
[372] _The Argument_, in _The Passion of Dido for Aeneas_, translated by
Edmund Waller and Sidney Godolphin, London, 1658.
[373] _Dedication_, in _Translations of Horace_. John Hanway, 1730.
[374] _Dedication_, dated 1728, reprinted in _The English Poets_, London,
1810, v. 20.
[375] _Preface_ to _The Destruction of Troy_, in Denham, _Poems and
Translations_, London, 1709.
[376] _To the courteous not curious reader._
[377] Comment on Trapp's "blank version" of Virgil, in _Life of Dryden_.
[378] _Preface to Sylvae_, _Essays_, v. 1, p. 266.
[379] _Dedication of the Aeneis_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 236.
[380] In _Du Bartas, His Divine Words and Works_, translated by Sylvester,
London, 1641.
[381] Lines by E. G., same edition.
[382] Same edition, p. 322.
[383] _An Essay on Translated Verse._
[384] _Dedication of the Aeneis_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 220.
[385] P. 222.
[386] _To the worthy reader._
[387] _To the courteous not curious reader_, in _The XII. Aeneids of
Virgil_, 1632.
[388] Preface to _The Destruction of Troy_.
[389] Dedication of _The Poems of Horace_.
[390] _To the Reader_, in _The First Book of Virgil's Aeneis_, London,
1688.
[391] Reprinted in _Godfrey of Bulloigne_, translated by Fairfax, New York,
1849.
[392] _Essays_, v. 2, p. 249.
[393] _Essays_, v. 2, p. 14.
[394] Sprat, _Life of Cowley_, in _Prose Works of Abraham Cowley_, London,
1826.
[395] _Preface to the Translation of Ovid's Epistles_, _Essays_, v. 1, p.
237.
[396] _Dedication of Examen Poeticum_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 10. Johnson,
writing of the latter part of the seventeenth century, says, "The authority
of Jonson, Sandys, and Holiday had fixed the judgment of the nation" (_The
Idler_, 69), and Tytler, in his _Essay on the Principles of Translation_,
1791, says, "In poetical translation the English writers of the sixteenth,
and the greatest part of the seventeenth century, seem to have had no other
care than (in Denham's phrase) to translate language into language, and to
have placed their whole merit in presenting a literal and servile
transcript of their original."
[397] In Lucan's _Pharsalia_, translated May, 1659.
[398] _To the Reader_, in Ovid's _Metamorphosis_, translated Sandys,
London, 1640.
[399] _Preface_ to _Pindaric Odes_, reprinted in _Essays and other Prose
Writings_, Oxford, 1915.
[400] _Preface to Ovid's Epistles_, _Essays_, v. 1, p. 239.
[401] Pp. 239-40.
[402] Dedication to Dryden, 1684, in _The Odes, Satires, and Epistles of
Horace done into English_, London, 1688.
[403] _Metellus his Dialogues, Relation of a Journey to Tunbridge Wells,
with the Fourth Book of Virgil's Aeneid in English_, London, 1693.
[404] _Preface to the Translation of Ovid's Epistles_, _Essays_, vol. 1, p.
240.
[405] _To the Earl of Roscommon on his excellent Essay on Translated
Verse._
[406] In Sir Robert Howard's _Poems_, London, 1660.
[407] In Holiday's _Persius_, Fifth Edition, 1650.
[408] In Creech's _Lucretius_, Third Edition, Oxford, 1683.
[409] In Creech's _Lucretius_, Third Edition, Oxford, 1683.
[410] _Essay on the Principles of Translation_, Everyman's Library, pp.
45-6.
[411] _Essays_, v. 1, p. 252.
[412] _Preface to the Translation of Ovid's Epistles_, _Essays_, v. 1, p.
241.
[413] _Preface to Sylvae_, _Essays_, v. 1, p. 254.
[414] _Ibid._, p. 264.
[415] _Preface_, in Second Edition of _Odes of Horace_, London, 1688.
[416] _Examen Poeticum_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 9.
[417] _Preface to the Fables_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 251.
[418] _To the Reader_, in _The Odes, Satires, and Epistles of Horace_,
London, 1688.
[419] _Preface_ to translation of Horace, 1652.
[420] _Dedication of the Eneis_, _Essays_, v. 2, pp. 220-1.
[421] _Preface to Sylvae_, _Essays_, v. 1, pp. 256-7.
[422] _Examen Poeticum_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 14.
[423] _Preface._
[424] _Essays_, v. 2, p. 10.
[425] _Dedication of the Eneis_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 223.
[426] _Preface to Sylvae_, _Essays_, v. 1, p. 255.
[427] _Essays_, v. 1, p. 258.
[428] _Dedication of the Eneis_, _Essays_, v. 2, p. 215.
[429] In _Ovid's Metamorphoses translated by Dryden, Addison, Garth_, etc.,
reprinted in _The English Poets_, v. 20.
[430] _Advertisement_ to _Elegies of Tibullus_, reprinted in same volume.
[431] _Preface_ to _Idylliums of Theocritus_, reprinted in same volume.
[432] _Dissertation on The Lusiad_, reprinted in _The English Poets_, v.
21.
[433] _Pope_, in _Lives of the Poets_, p. 568.
[434] _Cowley_, in _Lives_, p. 25.
[435] Preface of 1718, reprinted in _The Works of Virgil translated into
English blank verse by Joseph Trapp_, London, 1735.
[436] _Preface to Homer's Iliad._
[437] _Dryden_ in _Lives of the Poets_, p. 226.
[438] _Proposals for a translation of Virgil's Aeneis in Blank Verse_,
London, 1713.
[439] _Preface_, _op. cit._
[440] _Prefatory Dedication_, in _The Works of Virgil in English Verse_,
London, 1763.
[441] _Advertisement_, _op. cit._
[442] _Preface_ to _Ariosto_, reprinted in _The English Poets_, v. 21.
[443] _Preface_, reprinted in _The English Poets_, v. 19.
[444] _Dryden_, in _Lives_, p. 226.
[445] _Op. cit._
[446] _Preface_, reprinted in _The British Poets_, Chiswick, 1822, v. 90.
[447] _Prefatory Dedication_, in _The Works of Virgil in English Verse_,
London, 1763.
[448] _Preface_ to _Ariosto_, reprinted in _The English Poets_, v. 21.
[449] Pp. 53-4.
[450] _Essays_, Oxford Edition, p. 258.
[451] _Mr. Dennis's Remarks upon Pope's Homer_, London, 1717, p. 9.
[452] In _Down Hall, a Ballad_.
[453] Preface to _The Iliad of Homer_, translated by James Macpherson,
London, 1773.
[454] Preface to first edition, taken from _The Iliad of Homer, translated
by the late William Cowper_, London, 1802.
[455] Preface to first edition, taken from _The Iliad of Homer, translated
by the late William Cowper_, London, 1802.
[456] _Preface prepared by Mr. Cowper for a Second Edition_, in edition of
1802.
[457] _Letters_, ed. Wright, London, 1904, v. 3, p. 233.
[458] _History of English Literature_, p. 384.
[459] Preface to _The Odyssey of Homer done into English Prose_.
[460] Lecture, III, in _Essays_, p. 311.
[461] _Preface to Sylvae_, in _Essays_, v. 1, p. 252.
INDEX
INDEX
Adlington, William, 89, 94.
Aelfric, 4-5, 15, 55, 56, 58.
Alfred, 3-4, 15, 17.
_Alexander_, 10, 34.
Amyot, Jacques, xii, 106.
_Andreas_, 6, 7.
Andrew of Wyntoun, 35-6, 39, 116.
Arnold, Matthew, xi, 172, 177.
_Arthur_, 45.
Ascham, Roger, 109, 114.
Augustine, St., 50, 55.
_Authorized Version of 1611_, 51, 52, 54, 60, 61, 66, 68.
Bacon, Francis, 75.
Barbour, John, 36-7.
Barclay, Alexander, 100-1.
_Bay Psalm Book_, 77.
Bentley, Richard, 172.
Berners, Lord, 101, 105.
_Bevis of Hamtoun_, 23, 24.
_Birth of Jesus_, 43.
_Bishops' Bible_, 58, 59, 67.
_Blood of Hayles_, 40.
Bokenam, Osbern, 8, 16, 40, 43-4, 46.
_Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry_, 18.
B. R., 127-8.
Bradshaw, Henry, 8.
Brady, N., 166-7.
Brende, John, 88-9, 94, 129.
Brinsley, John, 140.
Brome, Henry, 136, 144.
Bryan, Sir Francis, 101, 105.
Bullokar, John, 95.
Bullokar, William, 109-10.
Caedmon, 6.
_Canticum de Creatione_, 15, 20.
Capgrave, John, 14, 19, 20-1, 22, 40, 45.
Carew, Richard, 128.
Cartwright, William, 155.
Castalio, 51, 61, 70.
_Castle of Love_, Grosseteste's, 9, 13.
Caxton, William, 9, 12, 31, 44, 96, 115.
_Blanchardyn and Eglantine_, 38.
_Charles the Great_, 38, 46.
_Eneydos_, 35, 38, 39.
_Fayttes of Arms_, 12.
_Godfrey of Bullogne_, 33.
_Mirror of the World_, 12.
_Recuyell of the Histories of Troy_, 38.
Cecil, Sir William, 119, 125.
Chaloner, Sir Thomas, 128.
Chapman, George, 90, 92, 93, 130-1, 145, 146, 147, 150, 161.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 9, 10, 30.
_Franklin's Tale_, 30.
_Knight's Tale_, 30.
_Legend of Good Women_, 8.
_Life of St. Cecilia_, 8.
_Man of Law's Tale_, 27, 28.
_Romance of the Rose_, 8.
_Sir Thopas_, 24.
_Troilus and Criseyde_, 6, 8, 30-1.
Cheke, Sir John, 59, 63, 108, 119, 125-6, 128.
_Child of Bristow_, 39-40.
Chretien de Troyes, 30.
Cooke, Thomas, 138-9.
Coverdale, Miles, 50-1, 52, 59, 60, 64-5, 74.
Cowley, Abraham, 137, 147, 149-50, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 165.
Cowper, William, 173, 174 ff.
Creech, Thomas, 151-2, 155-6, 158-9, 160, 166, 169.
Cromwell, Thomas, 51.
_Cursor Mundi_, 10.
Cynewulf, 6.
Dacier, Mme., 168.
Danett, Thomas, 90.
Daniel, Samuel, 87.
Davies of Hereford, John, 142.
Denham, Sir John, 137, 139, 144, 147, 150-1, 154, 156, 157.
Dennis, John, 173.
Dolet, Etienne, 99.
Douglas, Gavin, 107-8.
Drant, Thomas, 111 ff.
Dryden, John, 136-7, 141, 143, 145, 148, 151, 153-4, 154-5, 157-8, 159,
160-1, 162, 163, 166, 169, 177-8.
_Earl of Toulouse_, 23, 27.
Eden, Richard, 85, 91, 96.
_Elene_, 6.
Ely, Bishop of, 65.
Elyot, Sir Thomas, 11, 95, 118, 119-20.
_Emare_, 21.
Fairfax, Edward, 144-5.
_Falls of Princes_, Boccaccio's, 7, 37.
Fanshaw, Sir Richard, 139, 147, 169.
Fawkes, Francis, 164, 166, 169.
Fleming, Abraham, 109, 114.
Florio, John, 84, 87, 97.
_Floris and Blancheflor_, 45.
Fortescue, Thomas, 87, 103.
Foxe, John, 54, 67, 68, 94-5.
Francis, Philip, 168.
Fraunce, Abraham, 77.
Fulke, William, 54, 60, 65, 70 ff.
Garth, Sir Samuel, 163.
_Geneva Bible_, 53, 60, 61.
_Geneva New Testament_, 59, 61.
_Gesta Romanorum_, 28.
_Golagros and Gawain_, 21.